Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE 3)

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:37:26 -0500

Please see my comments inline.

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna

Non-editorial comments associated with RFC3012bis:

Please post your comments with the appropriate issue number in the subject
line (instead of simply replying to this email).

-Chairs.

3. Section 3.1 doesn't specify what the MN should do when it receives
   a STALE_CHALLENGE. 
   It also doesn't specify whether the MN should extract a new
   challenge value from a registration reply which has an error in it.

I think this RFC does not introduce a whole new protocol. In light of RFC
3344 (3220, 2002)
Mobility agents are supposed to periodically advertise their presence. As a
matter of fact, 
it makes it hard for the MN to miss all of these advertisement which may
developed the 
Stale-Challenge scenario.
Also, Mobility Agents (FA) include the MN-FA Challenge extension with new
Challenge 
in these periodic advertisement. The MN can choose one of these.

Or, RFC 3344 (3220,2002) also, provides a mechanism for the MN to solicit a
new challenge 
by sending an agent solicitation message as per section 2.2 and 2.3 in RFC
3344.

Furthermore, In section 3.1. it clearly states what the MN could do when
getting a RRP message
with an UNKNOWN_CHALLENGE. Stale-Challenge is very similar.

I really do not see the need to mention any thing extra in this regard.

Regards,
Ahmad